ML12184A234
| ML12184A234 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 06/29/2012 |
| From: | Sheppard S State of NY, Office of the Attorney General |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML12184A228 | List: |
| References | |
| RAS 22883, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12184A234 (39) | |
Text
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 1
UNITED STATES 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3
x 4
In re:
Docket Nos. 50-247-LR; 50-286-LR 5
License Renewal Application Submitted by ASLBP No. 07-858-03-LR-BD01 6
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, DPR-26, DPR-64 7
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC, and 8
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
June 29, 2012 9
x 10 REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF 11 DR. STEPHEN C. SHEPPARD, PH.D.
12 REGARDING CONTENTION NYS-16/16A/16B (NYS-16B) 13 On behalf of the State of New York (NYS or the State),
14 the Office of the Attorney General hereby submits the following 15 testimony by Dr. Stephen C. Sheppard, Ph.D. regarding Contention 16 NYS-16/16A/16B (NYS-16B).
17 Q.
Please state your full name.
18 A.
Dr. Stephen Charles Sheppard, Ph.D.
19 Q.
Dr. Sheppard, could you briefly summarize the 20 testimony you provided on December 16, 2011?
21 A.
I was retained by the State of New York in connection 22 with the States Contention 16B, which asserts that Entergy and 23 NYS000404 Submitted: June 29, 2012
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 2
NRC Staff have underestimated the 2035 population within 50 1
miles of Indian Point likely to be exposed to radiation during a 2
severe accident. In my testimony and expert report I described 3
two key deficiencies in Entergys and NRC Staffs population 4
estimate. The first is the failure to account for census 5
undercount and the second is the failure to account for the 6
commuter population.
7 Q.
What is the purpose of this reply testimony you are 8
now providing?
9 A.
The State of New York has asked me to respond to 10 Entergys March 28, 2012 and NRC Staffs March 30, 2012 11 testimony on Contention 16B.
12 Q.
What is the scope of your analysis in connection with 13 Contention 16B?
14 A.
I was asked to review Entergys and NRC Staffs 15 population estimates. These estimates, while ultimately used in 16 the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) analysis, 17 are based on Census Bureau and other demographic data. As an 18 economist, I have expertise in estimating populations and have 19 worked frequently with census and other demographic data. While 20 it is true that I do not have experience in the nuclear field, 21 using the MACCS or MACCS2 computer codes, or performing SAMA 22 analyses, this does not affect my ability to examine and 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 3
critique the population numbers relied upon by Entergy in its 1
SAMA analysis.
2 Q.
Generally, what kind of training is required to be 3
able to analyze demographic data to accurately estimate future 4
populations?
5 A.
To be able to analyze demographic data, one needs 6
training in the economic and social forces that determine rates 7
of migration, where populations live, and decisions about family 8
size. Training in fields such as labor or urban economics, 9
urban sociology, and human geography provides an understanding 10 of how to analyze demographic data to accurately estimate future 11 populations. Training in how to operate a computerized mapping 12 system does not provide an understanding of demography or the 13 economic and social forces that determine population levels.
14 Q.
Have you reviewed any additional documents since your 15 December 16, 2011 testimony in preparation for this rebuttal 16 testimony?
17 A.
Yes. I have reviewed the following documents filed by 18 Entergy on March 28, 2012: Entergys Statement of Position 19 Regarding Consolidated Contention NYS-16B (Severe Accident 20 Mitigation Alternatives Analysis) (ENT000002)(Entergy SOP);
21 Testimony of Entergy Witnesses Lori Potts, Kevin OKula, Grant 22 Teagarden, and Jerry Riggs on Consolidated Contention NYS-16B 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 4
(Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis) 1 (ENT000003)(Entergy Test.); and the supporting exhibits, 2
including the Rebuttal Commuter Analysis (ENT000027). I have 3
also reviewed the supporting files for the rebuttal commuter 4
analysis (April 6, 2012 Entergy Mandatory Disclosure Log Entry 5
- 9317), which include workplace county flow files and a 6
spreadsheet with calculations, provided by Entergy via email on 7
April 3, 2012.
8 Additionally, I have reviewed the following documents filed 9
by NRC Staff on March 30, 3012: NRC Staffs Initial Statement of 10 Position on Consolidated Contention NYS-16B (NRC000040) (Staff 11 SOP); NRC Staff Testimony of Nathan E. Bixler, S. Tina Ghosh, 12 Joseph A. Jones, and Donald G. Harrison Concerning NYSs 13 Contentions NYS 12/16 (NRC000041) (Staff Test.); and the 14 supporting exhibits. I have also reviewed the two Excel 15 spreadsheets, titled county to counter 2KWRKCO_NY.xlsx and 16 2010 census v. entergy estimate.xlsx, provided by NRC Staff 17 via email on April 12, 2012.
18 Conservative Population Estimates 19 Q.
In estimating future populations that could 20 potentially be present in an area surrounding a nuclear power 21 plant during a severe accident at a future point in time, are 22 there any guiding principles that should be taken into account?
23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 5
A.
Yes, an accurate and appropriate future population 1
estimate should take into account the entire potential 2
population that could be exposed to nuclear radiation, not just 3
permanent residents.
4 Q.
Is there any nuclear industry guidance that recommends 5
conservatism?
6 A.
Yes. The nuclear industry released NEI 05-01, Rev. A 7
(NYS000287) (NEI 05-01), which is cited by Entergy and 8
recommends adding conservatism to the population estimate and 9
including the transient population in that estimate. I take 10 this to mean that a conservative and scientifically valid 11 estimate of future population in the area should be provided.
12 Q.
Are Entergys and NRC Staffs population estimates 13 conservative?
14 A.
No. By failing to take census undercount and 15 commuters into consideration, Entergy and NRC Staff have 16 underestimated the 2035 population likely to be exposed to a 17 severe accident at Indian Point. This underestimation is not 18 conservative because it ignores commuters, who are a significant 19 part of the potentially exposed, transient population, and a 20 well-know issue with census data, census undercount.
21 Q.
Even though it did not take commuters or undercount 22 into account, did Entergy otherwise employ a conservative method 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 6
of estimating population growth in the counties within a 50-mile 1
radius of Indian Point?
2 A.
For three counties, Entergys approach was not 3
conservative and is therefore inconsistent with industry 4
guidance. NRC Staffs expert, Mr. Jones, notes that Entergy 5
conducted a regression analysis for three counties to determine 6
their 2035 population. Staff Test. at 95, A86. However, NEI 7
05-01 suggests that a licensee make a conservative population 8
estimate, looking to a year within the relicensing period when 9
the population is at its highest:
10 Typically, with increasing population, the predicted 11 population is estimated for a year within the second 12 half of the period of extended operation.
13 Extrapolation to a later date, and therefore a larger 14 population, adds conservatism to the analysis. Of 15 course, if a population reduction is projected 16 extrapolation to an earlier date would be more 17 reasonable.
18 NEI 05-01 at 13. The population for New York, Rockland, and 19 Westchester counties is projected to peak within the relicensing 20 period. However, instead of looking at the peak population as 21 suggested by NEI 05-01, Entergy conducted a regression analysis 22 for these three counties to determine how much the population 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 7
will decline from its peak by the year 2035. A conservative 1
estimate would include the peak population during the proposed 2
relicensing period.
3 Commuters 4
Q.
Dr. Sheppard, lets turn to commuters. Did either 5
Entergy or NRC Staff take commuters into account?
6 A.
No. Entergys population estimate purports to include 7
transients, but Entergys definition of transients includes 8
only tourists and business travelers. Entergy Test. at 28, A55.
9 The data Entergy used to estimate the transient population was 10 gathered from state tourism agencies, and therefore only 11 includes visitors, not commuters.
12 Q.
Do either NRC Staff or Entergy deny the existence of 13 commuters who live outside the 50-mile zone of Indian Point, but 14 travel to jobs within the zone?
15 A.
No, neither NRC Staff nor Entergy denies the existence 16 of close to a million commuters. In its rebuttal commuter 17 analysis, Entergy admits that there are 964,093 such commuters.
18 ENT000027 at 2. NRC Staffs expert, Mr. Jones, states, I 19 evaluated commuters entering the SAMA area from locations 20 outside the modeled area and agree with Dr. Sheppard (NYS000207 21 at 16) that about 1,000,000 commuters enter the SAMA area for a 22 work shift and then return home. Staff Test. at 17, A7.
23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 8
Q.
Do either NRC Staff or Entergy deny the fact that 1
these commuters werent included in the population estimate used 2
by Entergy in its SAMA analysis?
3 A.
No.
4 Q.
Entergy argues that it followed industry guidance in 5
including business travelers and tourists, but not commuters, in 6
the transient population used in its SAMA analysis (Entergy 7
Test. at 19, A41 and 28-29, A56). Do you agree that it was 8
proper to exclude commuters from the transient population?
9 A.
No, I do not agree that it was proper for Entergy to 10 exclude commuters from the transient population. In fact, I 11 find it troubling that NRC Staffs expert Mr. Jones continues to 12 regard the transient population as consisting only of tourists.
13 See Staff Test. at 95, A86. The transient population is the 14 population that may be present within the area, but does not 15 reside there. This includes tourists, to be sure, but it also 16 includes commuters.
17 Furthermore, I disagree that Entergys exclusion of 18 commuters from the transient population was consistent with 19 industry guidance. As Entergys experts note, industry guidance 20 on SAMA analyses, NEI 05-01, recommends that the transient 21 population included in the site emergency plan should be added 22 to the census data to be used in the SAMA analysis. Entergy 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 9
Test. at 28, A56; NEI 05-01 at 13. Entergys experts also note 1
(Entergy Test. at 28, A56) that Indian Points site emergency 2
plan incorporates the definition of transients from the Indian 3
Point Energy Center Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, 4
Rev. 2 (ENT000014) (IPEC ETE). IPEC ETE includes three groups 5
of people in the total population: (1) permanent residents 6
(those who are year round residents); (2) transients (people who 7
reside outside of the emergency zone and enter the area for a 8
specific purpose such as shopping or recreation, and then leave 9
the area); and (3) employees (people who reside outside of the 10 emergency zone and commute to businesses within the zone on a 11 daily basis). IPEC ETE at 3-2. Although Entergy chose to label 12 them as employees instead of transients, commuters are 13 included along with other types of transients in the population 14 estimate in IPEC ETE. Furthermore, the NRC guidance document 15 for conducting evacuation time estimates (State of the Art in 16 Evacuation Time Estimate Studies for Nuclear Power Plants, 17 NUREG/CR-4831, Mar. 1992, NYS000405) that is cited in IPEC ETE 18 (ENT000014 at ES-1) specifically notes that transients, 19 including commuters, should be included in the population 20 estimate. It states, Transients are visitors, including 21 tourists and daily employees, who live outside the EPZ 22
[emergency planning zone]. NYS000405 at 3. A more recent 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 10 evacuation time estimate guidance document (Development of 1
Evacuation Time Estimate Studies for Nuclear Power Plants, 2
NUREG/CR-6863, Jan. 2005, NYS000406) also includes commuters in 3
the definition of transients, stating: The transient population 4
group includes visitors, tourists, shoppers, employees not 5
residing in the area, and other people visiting the area 6
temporarily. NYS000406 at 6. Furthermore, NRC Staffs expert 7
Mr. Jones was the lead author of a guidance document on 8
evacuation time estimates that was issued in November 2011 9
(Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies, 10 NUREG/CR-7002, Nov. 2011, ML11329A053, NYS000407). Staff Test.
11 at 4, A2c. This document states: The transient population 12 includes tourists, shoppers, employees, etc., who visit but do 13 not reside in the area. NYS000407 at 11-13.
14 Entergy is incorrect to argue that it was following NRC and 15 industry guidance in including only tourists and business 16 travelers in the transient population. NRC guidance documents 17 recommend that commuters be included in the transient population 18 and Entergy itself considered commuters as part of the total 19 population in IPEC ETE.
20 Q.
NRC Staffs expert Mr. Jones argues that it was 21 reasonable for Entergy to exclude commuters stating: Tourists 22 including business travelers who stay overnight are included in 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 11 the permanent population because they are in the modeled SAMA 1
area for an extended time and could potentially accumulate dose 2
as the result of an accident at Indian Point. Commuters, on the 3
other hand, are only in the SAMA area about a third of day (8 4
hours plus commuting time). Staff Test. at 101, A94. Do you 5
agree with his assessment?
6 A.
No. Tourists and business travelers do not necessarily 7
spend more time than commuters within the 50 mile zone and, 8
therefore, should not be considered differently for purposes of 9
determining the population input to the MACCS2 code. Tourism 10 agencies, from which Entergy obtained its data, collect 11 information from popular tourist destinations, surveys, and 12 hotel registrations. These estimates include persons who enter 13 a state for shopping or recreation and may not necessarily stay 14 overnight. In fact, commuters may be more likely to be affected 15 by a severe accident than tourists. For example, a tourist is 16 unlikely to return to the 50 mile zone after a severe accident, 17 but by definition a commuter has a job within the 50 mile zone 18 to which he or she must return. Excluding commuters from the 19 population estimate, but including tourists, is inconsistent and 20 not reasonable.
21 Q.
How did Entergy calculate the transient population it 22 did include?
23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 12 A.
The Site Specific MACCS2 Input Data for Indian Point 1
Energy Center report prepared by Enercon (NYS00270A and 2
NYS00270B, also excepted in NYS000211, at 2-2 to 2-5) describes 3
how the transient population was calculated. First, Entergy 4
obtained data on the number of annual visitors from state 5
tourism agencies. Second, it determined the number of annual 6
visits on a per county basis. Third, for each county, it 7
obtained a ratio of transient to permanent residents by dividing 8
the number of county visits per day by the permanent resident 9
county population. Fourth, it multiplied the predicted 2035 10 permanent resident population by this ratio to obtain the 11 estimated 2035 transient population for each county.
12 Q.
Did Entergy adjust the state tourism data to account 13 for the portion of a day tourists and business travelers spent 14 within the 50-mile zone of Indian Point?
15 A.
No, Entergy did not adjust the state tourism data to 16 account for the amount of time tourists spent within the 50-mile 17 zone, nor does the industry guidance on SAMA analysis, NEI 05-18 01, suggest that such an adjustment be made.
19 Entergy could have used state data to cull out daily 20 visitors from overnight visitors and include only a percentage 21 of daily visitors, but including all of the transient population 22 is the more appropriate and conservative approach to estimating 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 13 the population that could be exposed to radiation in the event 1
of a severe accident. Just as Entergy did not reduce the number 2
of tourists and business travelers to account for the amount of 3
time they spent in the zone, it should not reduce the commuter 4
population by half.
5 Q.
Are commuters who travel from residences that are more 6
than 150 miles away already included as part of the transient 7
population Entergy received from the states and added to the 8
census data (Entergy Test. at 45, A83; Staff Test. at 102, A95)?
9 A.
Because neither Entergy nor NRC Staff have provided an 10 explanation of how the state tourism agencies calculated annual 11 visitors, it is difficult to tell for sure. However, scholars 12 have documented that a small portion of the population commutes 13 very long distances to jobs on a daily or weekly basis. These 14 individuals are known in the literature as super-commuters.
15 It is estimated that 59,000 super commuters work in Manhattan 16 alone. See Moss & Qing, The Emergence of the Super-Commuter, 17 at 9 (NYS000408)(Feb. 2012). For this reason, I believe that a 18 conservative estimate of the potential population that could be 19 within 50 miles of Indian Point during a severe accident should 20 include the small number of persons who commute over these long 21 distances. Of the 999,765 commuters that work within 50 miles of 22 Indian Point, Entergys experts estimate that only 35,672 are 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 14 long distance commuters. ENT000027 at 12. Subtracting these 1
long distance commuters causes the commuter population to 2
decrease only slightly. Id.
3 Q.
NRC Staffs expert Mr. Jones assumes the commuter 4
values presented in your expert report are inflated by 25% for 5
individuals who have already been counted as business travelers 6
in the state data on transient populations (Staff Test. at 104, 7
A95). On what basis does Mr. Jones make this assumption and do 8
you find it reasonable?
9 A.
Mr. Jones provides no support whatsoever for that 10 claim. Indeed in Mr. Joness testimony he states, If we assume 11 that Dr. Sheppards values are inflated by 25%.... Staff Test.
12 at 104, A95. He simply assumes this to be correct and offers no 13 valid evidence that his assumptions are scientifically valid.
14 This alternative appears to have more to do with presenting a 15 counter-offer to the commuter population I proposed in my 16 expert report than with undertaking the sort of careful and 17 scientifically valid analysis that should have been done in the 18 first place.
19 Q.
What support has Mr. Jones provided for the assertion 20 that an increase of less than 1% in the permanent population 21 would account for the commuter population (Staff Test. at 101, 22 A94)?
23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 15 A.
This figure, mentioned by Mr. Jones, (Staff Test. at 1
101, A94) appears to be another convenient round number that is 2
more the product of his assumptions than his analysis. Mr.
3 Jones has not provided any supporting calculations or other 4
documentation to show where the 1% value came from.
5 Additionally, the 1% figure does not appear to be related 6
to the percentage of the population that represents commuters.
7 The number of persons who commute from locations outside the 50 8
mile radius of Indian Point to workplaces within that radius was 9
nearly 890,000 persons in 2000, and this number is expected to 10 grow to over 995,000 persons by 2035. The number of commuters 11 into the region is nearly 5% of the total resident population, 12 not 1%.
13 Q.
Entergys experts argue that an accurate accounting of 14 commuters would also need to consider commuters out of the 50-15 mile region surrounding Indian Point (Entergy Test. at 45, A83).
16 What is your response?
17 A.
I do not agree with Entergys approach of calculating 18 a daytime or work day population by subtracting those 19 permanent residents who commute out of the 50-mile region. It 20 is important to keep in mind that the population estimate for 21 purposes of the SAMA analysis should be conservative. One must 22 distinguish between estimating the population at a specific date 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 16 and time, and generating a comprehensive picture of the 1
population over the 20 year relicensing period. A comprehensive 2
view looks at the most people who could be at risk in a typical 3
24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> cycle. For example, during a typical rush hour, 4
commuters who reside inside and outside of the 50 mile zone of 5
Indian Point may be crossing paths inside of the zone. Indeed, 6
the IPEC ETE takes all of these individuals into account. This 7
is also consistent with the NEI 05-01 guidance, which suggests 8
that the SAMA analysis consider the peak population during the 9
relicensing period.
10 Q.
Have you reviewed Entergys experts revised commuter 11 analysis contained in Table 4 on page 47 of Entergys Testimony?
12 A.
Yes, I have.
13 Q.
What is your response to this revised commuter 14 analysis?
15 A.
In the revised commuter analysis, Entergys experts 16 attempt to calculate a work day population in the 50 mile 17 region surrounding Indian Point by subtracting permanent 18 residents who work outside the zone from commuters coming into 19 the zone. I believe this is unacceptable for the reasons 20 mentioned above. A conservative estimate should look at the 21 maximum amount of people who are in the area on a daily basis.
22 A work day population estimate involves many non-conservative 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 17 assumptions. For example, it assumes that an accident will only 1
occur at Indian Point between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 2
Friday, after the population has arrived at their places of 3
employment. It does not account for those times of day when 4
permanent residents leaving the area and commuters entering the 5
area (or vice versa) are both within the 50 mile zone.
6 Census Undercount 7
Q.
Lets turn to discussing census undercount. Dr.
8 Sheppard, are you challenging the use of census data?
9 A.
No, I am not challenging the use of census data.
10 Census data is a proper starting point in forming a population 11 estimate. As Entergys experts point out, there are many uses 12 of census data such as Congressional redistricting, state and 13 local redistricting, funds allocation, and governmental program 14 administration. Entergy Test. at 42, A79. It is important to 15 remember that while many uses of census data have political 16 underpinnings, the use of census data to estimate the population 17 potentially exposed to a severe accident at Indian Point is not 18 a political matter. Estimating this population is a matter of 19 public health and safety. Thats why Entergys and NRC Staffs 20 population estimates must be accurate and conservative, and why 21 underestimations are significant deficiencies.
22 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 18 Q.
If you are not challenging the use of census data, 1
what is the issue you raise regarding census data?
2 A.
In order to form an accurate population estimate 3
appropriate for its SAMA analysis, Entergy must adjust census 4
data for those individuals who have been missed by the decennial 5
census due to census undercount.
6 Q.
Is adjusting for census undercount controversial?
7 A.
Census undercount is a widely-recognized phenomenon 8
that has been acknowledged by both the Census Bureau and the 9
U.S. Congress. It is an accepted fact that an undercount of 10 some degree is inevitable in any attempt to count hundreds of 11 millions of individuals. However, since the rates of census 12 undercount have been well-documented, adjusting for undercount 13 can be done using demographic analysis and/or post-census 14 sampling.
15 Census data is used for a variety of diverse purposes. For 16 example, census data is used for apportioning seats in the U.S.
17 House of Representatives, drawing the boundaries of U.S.
18 electoral districts, and allocating federal funds. Adjusting 19 census data for census undercount or for any other reason can be 20 politically controversial because of its consequences a state 21 may lose a congressional seat, an electoral districts 22 boundaries may change, or a municipality may lose federal 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 19 funding. The controversy arises over the political implications 1
of the adjustment, rather than the adjustment itself. It is 2
uncontroversial that adjusting for undercount provides a more 3
accurate population estimate and a population estimate that is 4
more conservative, in line with NEI 05-01.
5 Q.
Why does the Census Monitoring Board Report 6
(NYS000213), characterize the statistical estimation to adjust 7
the census as a controversial issue (Staff Test. at 99, A90)?
8 A.
The Census Monitoring Board Report is referring to the 9
political controversy I mentioned in my last answer. Due to the 10 very high rates of undercount in the 1990 census, Congress 11 passed the Decennial Census Improvement Act in 1991, which 12 directed the Secretary of Commerce to contract with the National 13 Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study methods for obtaining more 14 accurate population counts. Based on the recommendations of 15 NAS, the Census Bureau announced plans to use statistical 16 sampling to supplement the data collected through census forms 17 returned in the upcoming 2000 census. Fearing that such 18 statistical sampling would hurt their majority in Congress, 19 Republicans pushed through a bill prohibiting the use of 20 sampling or statistical adjustment for the purpose of 21 determining the population to be used for Congressional 22 apportionment. This bill was then vetoed by President Clinton.
23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 20 The issue was later litigated and the U.S. Supreme Court 1
determined that the use of statistical sampling for 2
Congressional apportionment violates the Census Act. However, 3
the Census Bureau is not prohibited from statistically adjusting 4
the population numbers used for other purposes such as 5
redistricting or federal funds allocation.
6 It should be noted that the paragraph of the Census 7
Monitoring Board Report referred to in Staffs testimony 8
concludes that statistical adjustment could have eliminated or 9
corrected undercount in the 2000 census. NYS000213 at 10 OAGI0001265_00031.
11 Q.
Did Entergy or NRC Staff adjust for census undercount?
12 A.
No.
13 Q.
Although Entergy did not include undercount in its 14 population estimate, is it fair to say that it did model the 15 population growth through 2035 using some conservative 16 assumptions that adequately account for any potential undercount 17 that may have been present in the 2000 Census (Staff Test. at 18 100, A91)?
19 A.
No. Neither NRC Staff nor Entergy demonstrates that 20 any of the assumptions claimed to be conservative are comparable 21 to the magnitude of the census undercount error. The way to 22 ensure sound analysis is with a table that compares the 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 21 magnitude of conservatism with the magnitude of error. Mere 1
allegations of conservatism are inadequate. The estimated costs 2
of a severe accident depend on both the number and location of 3
population. NRC Staffs and Entergys experts have put forward 4
an analysis that fails to make appropriate conservative 5
adjustments for population, and now hope to justify this failure 6
by comparing the 2010 census figures for the entire region 7
rather than conducting a detailed analysis for each sub-area.
8 Their approach is neither scientifically valid nor consistent 9
with guidelines to make use of conservative population 10 estimates.
11 Q.
Is Entergy correct in arguing that Exhibit NYS000212 12 (the Robinson et al. article) is irrelevant because it pertains 13 to the 1990 census and not the 2000 census data used by Entergy 14 in its SAMA analysis (Entergy Test. at 39, A73)?
15 A.
I disagree with the assertion that the Robinson 16 article is irrelevant because it describes undercount in the 17 1990 census. The article underscores the persistent problem of 18 undercounted populations. Although it had been documented prior 19 to 1990, that was first time census undercount became a 20 significant public issue that received a large amount of media 21 attention and scholarly analysis. The article also shows that 22 there are established, reliable methods for determining the rate 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 22 of undercount among different groups.
1 Q.
Does the A.C.E. Revision II Technical Assessment, 2
(ENT000016) (A.C.E. Revision II), supersede Exhibits NYS000213 3
(U.S. Census Monitoring Board Report) and NYS000214 (ESCAP II:
4 Demographic Analysis Results), as Entergy argues (Entergy Test.
5 at 40, A73)?
6 A.
The A.C.E. reports are part of the Accuracy and 7
Coverage Evaluation process that is undertaken within the Census 8
Bureau to better understand and estimate the extent of census 9
undercount. This process has provided several different 10 estimates of the magnitude of the census undercount. In 11 addition, estimates made by other demographers have been 12 published in the scientific and professional literature. The 13 estimates for the 2000 census show no or minimal undercount for 14 white populations, and undercounts for minority populations that 15 range from 5.8% for black males to less than 1% for Native 16 Americans. The variation in estimates depends upon whether one 17 relies on demographic analysis (births, deaths, and migration 18 flows) or post-enumeration sampling to estimate the magnitude of 19 the undercount. The A.C.E. Revision II utilized post-20 enumeration sampling but noted that the demographic analysis for 21 the 2000 census found a nationwide net undercount of 0.12%, not 22
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 23 an overcount. A.C.E. Revision II at 33-35. Each method has its 1
strengths and weaknesses.
2 I have chosen a reasonable figure within this range of 3
estimates of 3% to be applied to the non-white population within 4
the 50 mile zone. The A.C.E. Revision II does not supersede or 5
supplant this range of estimates. In fact, it recognizes the 6
existence of an undercount among minority populations in the 7
2000 census and it provides a summary of internal Census Bureau 8
research that essentially validates the reasonable 3% undercount 9
figure I have assumed. See A.C.E. Revision II at 12.
10 In evaluating the reasonableness of my adjustments in 11 comparison with the Census Bureaus reported research, it should 12 be remembered that the Census Bureau is under tremendous 13 pressure because of the use of its figures for distributing 14 appropriations and redistricting. The Census Bureau was 15 operating against strict deadlines to release population 16 estimates for use in these important functions. The SAMA 17 analysis is not, and should not be, subject to this sort of 18 pressure. Following NEI 05-01s guideline to utilize a 19 conservative population estimate, I have suggested a mid-range 20 estimate of the undercount for the region surrounding Indian 21 Point.
22 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 24 Q.
How do documents that report an overcount in the 2000 1
census such as Exhibit NRC000055 (Staff Test. at 99, A90) affect 2
your conclusions about census undercount?
3 A.
Internal research by the Census Bureau and the 4
published reports of other scholars provide no support for the 5
idea of an overcount of minority populations. The support for 6
an overcount of white populations is very modest, with estimates 7
ranging from 0.19% to 1.4%. Given that census forms are written 8
to be very clear on who should be counted, and census 9
enumerators are trained to count only verifiable population, the 10 consensus of social scientists is that the census is more prone 11 to undercount, rather than overcount, the population. The 12 question concerns the magnitude of the undercount. The middle-13 range undercount level I have assumed is only applied to the 14 non-white population. The 50 mile area surrounding Indian Point 15 has a significantly higher percentage of minority population 16 than the nation as a whole, which makes adjustment for 17 undercount particularly important.
18 Q.
Did the Census Bureau ultimately adjust the 2000 19 census for census undercount?
20 A.
Ultimately the Census Bureau decided to not adjust the 21 officially reported 2000 census figures. As I mentioned earlier 22 the Census Bureau was working under strict deadlines to release 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 25 final numbers. The Census Bureau has opted to make the A.C.E.
1 process public and to release updates and reports on internal 2
estimates of the census undercount, so that users of the data 3
can make adjustments in those circumstances where it is 4
warranted. Preparing population data for use in the SAMA 5
analysis is exactly such a circumstance, and that is why I have 6
proposed adjusting the population to account for the 7
acknowledged census undercount of minority populations.
8 Q.
Is your assertion that Entergys population estimates 9
should be adjusted for undercount directly contrary to the U.S.
10 Census Bureaus own findings (Entergy SOP at 3)?
11 A.
Not at all. Indeed, the A.C.E. report and its 12 revisions, which documented an undercount of minority 13 populations, should properly be viewed as among the findings 14 of the Census Bureau in understanding and interpreting the 2000 15 census. I have used these findings and those of other scholars 16 to identify a reasonable mid-range estimate of the census 17 undercount. To ignore the issue, as Entergy did in its original 18 SAMA analysis, is in fact directly contrary to the Census 19 Bureaus own findings.
20 Q.
In your opinion, is census undercount more likely to 21 affect the 50 mile radius surrounding Indian Point than other 22 areas of the country?
23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 26 A.
Yes. As I mentioned earlier, analysis of census 1
undercount indicates that it disproportionately occurs amongst 2
non-white populations. 2000 census data indicates that the 3
resident population within 50 miles of Indian Point is 42.24%
4 nonwhite. In comparison, 2000 census data indicates that the 5
United States population as a whole is 18.95% nonwhite. Within 6
50 miles of Indian Point, 20.31% of the population classified 7
themselves as Black, and 21.44% classified themselves as 8
Hispanic. This compares with 12.69% Black and 12.55% Hispanic 9
nationwide. These figures suggest that census undercount can be 10 expected to be much more severe for the area within 50 miles of 11 Indian Point than for the United States as a whole.
12 The relatively large share of population that is nonwhite 13 implies that the undercount is almost certainly not equalized by 14 a hypothesized overcount of the white population. While some 15 studies do suggest very modest levels of overcount of whites in 16 the 2000 census, the magnitudes are generally extremely small or 17 zero, and generally much less than 1%. For a hypothetical 18 overcount of white population to make up for the undercount of 19 nonwhite population in the area within 50 miles of Indian Point, 20 the overcount of the white population would have to be 21 approximately 1.8%. There is no credible estimate suggesting a 22 white overcount of this magnitude.
23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 27 Furthermore, it has been documented that census undercount 1
occurs at higher rates in places with larger populations. The 2
A.C.E. Revision II found a net undercount in approximately 60%
3 of places where the population is larger than 100,000. A.C.E.
4 Revision II at 25, Table 10. As Indian Point is located 24 5
miles from one of the largest cities in the country, census 6
undercount is more likely to affect this region than other, less 7
populous regions of the country.
8 2010 Census Data 9
Q.
Did Entergy use 2010 census data as the basis for the 10 2035 population surrounding Indian Point?
11 A.
No. Entergys SAMA analysis was conducted prior to 12 the 2010 census, so it did not rely upon or even have access to 13 2010 census data at that time. The population estimate was 14 based on data from the 2000 census.
15 Q.
Could Entergy now update its population projections 16 using 2010 census data and re-run its SAMA analysis?
17 A.
Yes, as long as Entergy consistently used 2010 census 18 data. If Entergy were to update its population projections, it 19 would have to base all of its numbers, including transient 20 populations and population growth rates, on 2010 census data.
21 It would also have to account for census undercount in the 2010 22 census. Some of this data may not yet be available for the 2010 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 28 census.
1 Q.
NRC Staffs expert Mr. Jones compared Entergys 2
population projections for 2010 with the results of the 2010 3
census. The results are contained in Table 4: 2010 Census 4
Comparison (Staff Test. at 97-98). Have you reviewed this 5
table?
6 A.
Yes. The table contains a comparison between 7
Entergys projected 2010 population by county and the population 8
counts from the 2010 census.
9 Q.
Mr. Jones concludes that Entergy overestimated the 10 2010 population because the reported 2010 census population is 11 326,878 people greater than Entergys predicted 2010 population 12 (Staff Test. at 97, A89). Is this true?
13 A.
It is correct that the actual counts from the 2010 14 census are about 1.9% lower than Entergys original projections.
15 Some counties are larger than projected, some smaller. Overall, 16 the estimate is probably within a reasonable range of error for 17 simple population forecasts of this sort.
18 Q.
Mr. Jones argues that since the 2010 census reports a 19 greater population than Entergys 2010 prediction, any failure 20 to account for census undercount or commuters has been 21 compensated for by this 2010 overestimation (Staff Test. at 100-22 101). What is your response?
23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 29 A.
Mr. Joness conclusion does not represent a valid 1
analysis of the accuracy of Entergys population estimates. It 2
would be possible to redo the population estimate using the 2010 3
census numbers (assuming all of the relevant data, such as the 4
worker flow files, has been released); however, that is not what 5
Mr. Jones has done here. Instead, he has picked a particular 6
point of comparison and argued that since Entergys numbers are 7
higher, it compensates for any deficiencies in Entergys 8
estimate. A comprehensive analysis does not look at one number 9
in isolation because there are other variables that must be 10 studied and accounted for. For example, the 2010 census number 11 that Mr. Jones cites has not been adjusted for undercount in the 12 2010 census. Furthermore, it does not account for any changes 13 in population growth that have occurred between when Entergy 14 originally made the 2010 population estimate and when the 2010 15 census was taken. Since the population estimate for the SAMA 16 analysis must look at changes in population over a 20 year 17 period, picking one number in isolation does not provide the 18 required comprehensive view. Additionally, my population 19 estimate is approximately 1.2 million people larger than 20 Entergys estimate, and the number cited by Mr. Jones (326,878) 21 is only 27% of this calculated adjustment.
22 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 30 SAMA Analysis 1
Q.
Dr. Sheppard, now lets turn to the SAMA analysis. Did 2
NRC Staff re-run the SAMA analysis with a population accounting 3
for commuters and census undercount?
4 A.
NRC Staff did not conduct a sensitivity analysis or 5
re-run the SAMA analysis. Instead, Staff speculates that the 6
population increases described in my expert report will not have 7
a material impact on the SAMA analysis.
8 Q.
What support has NRC Staff provided to show the impact 9
accounting for census undercount or commuters would have on the 10 SAMA analysis?
11 A.
NRC Staff has provided expert testimony on the 12 subject, but has not provided any calculations or computer runs 13 to verify the impact of accounting for census undercount and 14 commuters. Thus, it is not possible to assess the accuracy of 15 NRC Staffs speculations. In addition, Mr. Joness testimony 16 relies on numerous assumptions that are not supported with any 17 cited evidence. For example, Mr. Jones assumes that in the 18 event of an accident at Indian Point, commuters will either stay 19 home, easily evacuate, or be shielded from radiation by their 20 office buildings, and therefore, they will not receive large 21 radiation doses. He cites no data to support these assumptions, 22 making them impossible to verify.
23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 31 Q.
Mr. Jones argues that most commuters would simply 1
return home and avoid exposure, and that only under a worst case 2
scenario would they remain at work (Staff Test. at 103, A95). Do 3
you agree with this assertion?
4 A.
No. Mr. Jones does not cite any documents such as an 5
evacuation time estimate report to support his assertion that 6
commuters could leave the 50 mile zone before the plume of 7
radiation reached their workplaces. Even if commuters were able 8
to escape the radiation plume on the day of the accident, they 9
would need to return to their workplaces within the 50 mile zone 10 sometime after the accident, potentially exposing them to 11 radiation. See Staff Test. at 39, A34 ([T]he returning 12 population receives a dose that contributes to the population 13 dose.). If their businesses closed due to contamination, they 14 could lose income, thus increasing the economic costs of the 15 accident. Entergy Test. at 30, A61 ([C]ommuters could be 16 impacted by lost income, because their job sites would be 17 impacted by interdiction.).
18 Q.
Did Entergy re-run the SAMA analysis with a population 19 accounting for commuters and census undercount?
20 A.
Entergy purports that Entergys experts performed a 21 MACCS2 sensitivity analysis in which they increased Entergys 22 2035 population estimate for census undercount and commuters as 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 32 suggested by Dr. Sheppard (Entergy SOP at 5), but instead of 1
using the entire population increase described in my expert 2
report, Entergy took only half of the commuters into account.
3 Q.
Are there any issues with halving the commuter 4
population to account for the amount of time commuters are 5
likely to spend within the 50-mile zone?
6 A.
Halving the commuter population is problematic because 7
it does not reflect the costs of an accident that occurs when 8
the entire commuter population is present within the 50 mile 9
zone. As I mentioned, commuters could be exposed to radiation 10 or lose income as a result of interdiction. Any personal 11 property commuters had in the region, such as automobiles, could 12 be exposed to radiation, requiring decontamination. One 13 important cost associated with a severe accident is the 14 decontamination of property. It follows that the higher the 15 building density, the more buildings there are to decontaminate.
16 Commuters also have an impact on building density because if 17 there are more workers in a region, more buildings will be 18 required to house those workers. These extra buildings will 19 need to be decontaminated in the event of a severe accident, 20 increasing the costs of that accident. See Staff Test. at 41, 21 A35 (The cost of achieving the DF [decontamination factor] is 22 input in terms of dollars per person ($/person). By using a per 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 33 person basis, this approach takes into account the site-specific 1
high population density of New York City and the correspondingly 2
high density of buildings.).
3 The industry guidance on SAMA analysis, NEI 05-01, does not 4
suggest reducing the transient population for the amount of time 5
spent in the zone and Entergy did not reduce the other transient 6
populations (i.e. tourists and business travelers) for the 7
amount of time they spent within the 50 mile zone. Taking the 8
entire commuter population into account is consistent with NEI 9
05-01 and is the more conservative approach.
10 Entergys experts sensitivity analysis does not actually 11 test the implications of my population adjustments because it 12 reduces my analysis of commuter data by 50%. Including the full 13 commuter population could yield a different SAMA analysis 14 outcome.
15 Q.
Do you see any other deficiencies in Entergys 16 experts sensitivity analysis?
17 A.
Yes. Population is an input to the MACCS2 code, but 18 it must be entered into the MACCS2 code by grid element. When 19 Entergys experts entered their reduced population increase of 20 729,520 persons into the MACCS2 code, they utilized a flawed 21 method of allocating the population increases to the individual 22 grid elements. They allocated the population based on visual 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 34 alignment of counties to [the] 50 mile grid. ENT000006 at 1.
1 For those counties located between 0 and 10 miles of Indian 2
Point, they also back calculated [a] uniform % increase to 3
match the visually assigned additions. Id. Adding in 50% of 4
the commuters and all of the census undercount as Entergy did 5
results in a 3.79% population increase. Entergys experts, 6
however, increased the population between 0 and 10 miles by only 7
1.118%. This means that instead of adding 14,815 persons to the 8
area between 0 and 10 miles of Indian Point (a 3.79% increase),
9 Entergy added only 4,367 persons (a 1.118% increase).
10 Entergys methodology is technically deficient for several 11 reasons. First, Entergys experts method of visually 12 allocating the population is not a scientifically valid method.
13 The proper way to allocate the population increases is to 14 multiply the pre-existing population for each grid element by 15 the percentage of increase in population. This method 16 distributes the population increases proportionately by grid 17 element. Second, by increasing the population closest to the 18 plant by only 1.118% instead of 3.79%, Entergy allocated an 19 unusually small share of the adjustment to the area within 10 20 miles of Indian Point, and allocated more of the population 21 adjustment to grid elements located farther away from the plant.
22 These allocations are not in proportion to existing populations, 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 35 existing minority populations, or commuter flow data. This 1
flawed allocation will impact the results of the sensitivity 2
analysis because the location of the population affects the 3
MACCS2 models calculations. For example, the population 4
located closer to Indian Point will receive larger doses of 5
radiation than the population located farther from the plant.
6 See Staff Test. at 26, A19 (The model calculates the location 7
of the plume and the concentration of each released isotope for 8
each spatial grid cell and further determines how much 9
contamination falls out of the plume to be finally deposited 10 into each spatial grid cell.); 71, A64 ([C]ontamination is 11 heaviest near the plant and lightest at the outer boundary of 12 the 50-mile region); and 102, A95 (stating that those closer to 13 the plant receive a higher dose in the MACCS2 model). Therefore, 14 Entergys purported assessment of sensitivity cannot be regarded 15 as valid.
16 I have created an exhibit, NYS000409, that shows what a 17 proper allocation of population increases would look like, using 18 both Entergys experts reduced population increase and the 19 total increased population from my expert report.
20 Q.
Did Entergy conclude that increasing the population 21 had an effect on the SAMA analysis?
22 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 36 A.
Yes, even with its flawed sensitivity analysis, 1
Entergy concluded increasing population results in an increasing 2
of what Entergy characterizes as key metrics in a SAMA 3
analysis the population dose risk and the offsite economic cost 4
risk. Entergy SOP at 24.
5 Q.
What was the increase in key SAMA metrics Entergy 6
calculated?
7 A.
By ignoring 50% of the commuters and increasing the 8
population by only 3.79%, as opposed to the 6.38% increase 9
described in my report (NYS000209), and using a flawed method of 10 allocating the population increases, Entergy calculated 11 increases of PDR and OECR of 3.1% and 3.2%, respectively.
12 Q.
Did Entergy perform any analyses using the population 13 from your report?
14 A.
Not to my knowledge.
15 Q.
Did Entergys SAMA analysis change any inputs to the 16 MACCS2 model other than population?
17 A.
No. According to the explanation provided in the 18 testimony, Entergy increased the population input, but did not 19 change any other parameters. See Entergy Test. at 48-49.
20 Q.
NYS Consolidated Contention 12C challenges other 21 MACCS2 input values. Has Entergy or NRC Staff demonstrated that 22 an increased population, combined with other site-specific 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 37 values, would not have a material effect on the SAMA analysis?
1 A.
No. Neither Entergy nor NRC Staff have disclosed what 2
would happen if the SAMA analysis were re-run, taking both the 3
underestimation of population and the deficiencies with other 4
parameters into account.
5 Q.
Entergys testimony suggests that any underestimation 6
in population is not material because for additional SAMAs to 7
become cost-beneficial, the benefit would have to increase by 8
11%, and that the increase due to census undercount and half of 9
the commuter population is only 3.2% (Entergy Test. at 49-50, 10 A89). What is your response?
11 A.
The technical details of the use of the MACCS2 model 12 in the SAMA analysis are not within my expertise, but Entergys 13 conclusion is not adequately supported without re-running the 14 SAMA analysis: (1) to account for all the commuters; (2) to 15 properly distribute the population increases by grid element; 16 and (3) to account for any other inputs that were 17 underestimated.
18 Entergys experts analysis demonstrated that increasing 19 the population results in an increase in key SAMA metrics.
20 Accounting for all of the commuters would lead to a greater 21 increase. Accounting for the deficiencies in other MACCS2 22 inputs would also lead to a greater increase. It is clear from 23
Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Stephen Sheppard, Ph.D.
Contention NYS-16B 38 the expert testimony of Entergy and NRC Staff that use of the 1
MACCS2 model requires correct allocation of population to the 2
appropriate grid elements around Indian Point. As I discussed 3
previously, Entergys experts sensitivity analysis for 4
population increases involved the strange use of what they 5
characterize as visual allocation. Careful inspection of the 6
allocation of population changes to the grid reveals that they 7
allocated a disproportionate share of the adjustments to grid 8
elements farther than 10 miles from the plant. This renders 9
their sensitivity analysis invalid.
10 Q.
Is it fair to characterize a 3.2% increase as very 11 small in comparison to an 11% increase (Entergy Test. at 49, 12 A88)?
13 A.
Entergys experts provide no justification for this 14 qualitative characterization. Furthermore, the increase would 15 be larger if the correct inputs and grid element allocations 16 were used.
17 Q.
Does this conclude your rebuttal testimony?
18 A.
Yes.
19